4 report[ed] that it had not been asked to examine the case in question, so that [...] domestic remedies ha[d] not been exhausted in the case,” and attached copies of an official letter dated September 2, 1999, addressed to the Head of the International Studies Division by the President of the Central Electoral Board, a letter dated September 20, 1999, addressed to the Inspectorate of the Central Electoral Board by Thelma Bienvenida Reyes, Civil Status Registrar, and a list of eleven requirements for late declaration of birth issued by the Central Electoral Board. 11. On September 30, 1999, also, and in relation to the adoption of precautionary measures, the State advised that “the Dominican Republic [would] never repatriate a Haitian citizen who was in the country legally, with a legal residence permit, a work permit, [or] a valid Dominican visa[,] or according to any of the conditions that have been established for accepting illegal immigrants, [such as] individuals who have been in the country for a long time, or who are related to Dominican nationals,” and that “the Directorate General of Migration [had] reiterated the provisions it had established for repatriation procedures to the corresponding departments, emphasizing [...] that the [Yean and Bosico children] should not be repatriated while the procedure of verifying the legitimacy of their arguments was underway.” 12. On October 5, 1999, the Inter-American Commission held a hearing on the precautionary measures ordered in this case, during which the petitioners’ representatives alleged that “the actions of the [State] ha[d] left the children Dilcia and Violeta without a nationality and ha[d] exposed them to the risk of immediate and arbitrary expulsion from the country in which they were born.” The State indicated that “it had never violated the law or refused to register their births[, rather] the procedure established [by law] had not been complied with;” it added that “it doubted that domestic remedies had been exhausted.” 13. On November 1, 1999, the Commission advised that “it place[d] itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter.” 14. On December 1, 1999, the State advised the Commission that it was willing to accept the friendly settlement mechanism and put on record that “domestic remedies ha[d] not yet been exhausted.” 15. On December 2, 1999, the petitioners’ representatives alleged that “they ha[d] exhausted domestic remedies [and] ha[d] complied with the provisions of Dominican law to appeal the denied registration [..., because the children had] appealed the decision before the Public Prosecutor[, who had] rejected the appeal.” The petitioners’ representatives also alleged that the Central Electoral Board “ha[d] already considered [the registration request] and decided against the [children] and, consequently, Dilcia and Violeta ha[d] exhausted the questionable ‘appeal procedure’ before the [Central Electoral Board].” 16. On January 11, 2000, the petitioners’ representatives advised that they were willing to take part in the friendly settlement procedure proposed by the Commission. 17. On March 1, 2000, the petitioners’ representatives submitted a proposal for a friendly settlement to the Commission, requesting specific measures of satisfaction, such as: registration of the children’s births; modification of the requirements for late declaration of birth to ensure the rights of Dominican children with Haitian